A Rhode Island family filed a lawsuit in Kent Superior Court claiming that Verizon Communications caused “great pain, anxiety, nervousness and mental anguish,” by providing access to the Playboy Channel. (source) Plaintiffs Robert Bourne, Denise Roy and daughters Elice Roy and Danielle Bourne are seeking compensation for “current and future medical bills.”
XBiz reports that their attorney, Gregory P. Massad, did not respond to requests for a comment on the case.
I was able to find one case involving a lawyer by that name, but I’m not sure if it is the same guy. See Gregory P. Massad f/k/a John Doe v. Connecticut Bar Examining Committee, 818 A.2d 14 (Conn. 2003). In that case, the Connecticut Bar refused admission to a Mr. Massad because he “lack[ed] present good moral character.” Although the case style is for a “Doe,” the National Conference of Bar Examiners lists it as “recaptioned” and provides his name.
I wonder how much money the Bourne/Roy family wants to soothe the “pain” from the Playboy channel being made available on their cable box — which they had to order, turn on, and pay for.
The melodramatic complaint is here (courthouse news service). After reading it, I can say that if Mr. Massad is not the same one who was rejected by the Connecticut Bar, he certainly must be related to that guy. I have seen few complaints that are more frivolous than this one, and I question the ethics of anyone who would sign such a pleading.
A clever commenter at overlawyered.com, who linked to this story wrote:
If only someone could invent some sort of mechanism to allow the viewer to select another channel or even to just turn the whole mechanism OFF! I bet they could make a lot of money from such a contraption. Probably not as much as there is to be made from filing frivolous lawsuits, but maybe enough to supplement one’s Social Security benefits.
UPDATE
I noticed in my blog stats that someone at Stormfront.org has now linked to this story. For now, all I have to say to my Stormfront – based readers is that this post might interest you. Well, that and my terms of service, which specifically ban any Stormfront members from using the site. $10,000 in liquidated damages per occurrence and a violation of 18 USC s 1030, nazi swine.
Oh and this:
Do I make myself clear?
By Email
By RSS Feed
The Legal Satyricon 
I’m waiting for the lawyer to be disqualified due to the conflict btwn the parties. Had mom and dad used the V-chip, the kids would not have been exposed. Should Verizon be liable to the kids, so should mom and dad.
Mom and Dad should also have their case thrown out for contributory negligence and unclean hands. 1) V-chip. 2) Remote Control. A fleeting image of nudity should not cause such a problem.
I’d be empathetic, somewhat, if all they wanted was their money back for the subscription because they were shocked and offended. If sex bothers them so much, its a wonder they conceived.
[…] Randazza (Dec. 12; source link he cites is NSFW): A Rhode Island family filed a lawsuit in Kent Superior Court […]
The are claiming that the Playboy channel was received by them without their having subscribed to it; presumably an inadvertent error on Verizon’s part, if true. Presumably they could have prevented said transmission at any time by disconnecting the cable box.
Yes, or using the magic button with the strange inscription on it that says OFF!